Docklands Extension Luas Delta Junction

armada104

I can't find any info on this on the RPA website. Does anyone know how it's going to work? Will all trams serve Connolly?

Victor

Their thinking has evolved. They expect to operate something like Tallaght-Connolly and Citywest-The Point. Of course this depends on Citywest being up and running. For those trams that aren't going to Connolly, Busáras is very close and there will be a tram along in a few minutes anyway. Additional morning peak trams would operate Heuston-Connolly.

Drawing here: http://www.rpa.ie/cms/download.asp?id=84

armada104

Thanks. Not ideal though really, is it? Presumably that would mean only 5 trams per hour to the Point.

Skyhater

All the solutions i have seen so far are completely idiotic.... you wouldn't see it anywhere else in the world.

All they have to do is to create a new stop at the junction of the Connolly "spur", and get rid of the spur all together (it's only about 75m anyway).
If they want to do a really good job, they could then install a covered travelator along the length of the current spur.

Once that is done they should get rid of the Busáras stop (it's already ridiculous they are so close together) and provide an underground line from Connolly stop to Busáras. This would also link Connolly Station with Busáras.

Would cost more money, but would be the proper Job.

Poxyshamrock

Would trains not go from Tallaght to Connolly and then Connolly to Point?

If not what is the track from Connolly to Mayor street serving then.
A Point to Connolly Service???

L1011

Poxyshamrock wrote: »

Would trains not go from Tallaght to Connolly and then Connolly to Point?

If not what is the track from Connolly to Mayor street serving then.
A Point to Connolly Service???

Trams which do not serve Connolly...

Victor

While you might have Tallaght-Connolly and Citywest-The Point at peak time, I suspect at 6am or 11pm it would do Tallaght-Connolly-The Point and separately Citywest-Connolly-The Point.

sdanseo

Skyhater wrote: »

All the solutions i have seen so far are completely idiotic.... you wouldn't see it anywhere else in the world.

All they have to do is to create a new stop at the junction of the Connolly "spur", and get rid of the spur all together (it's only about 75m anyway).
If they want to do a really good job, they could then install a covered travelator along the length of the current spur.

Once that is done they should get rid of the Busáras stop (it's already ridiculous they are so close together) and provide an underground line from Connolly stop to Busáras. This would also link Connolly Station with Busáras.

Would cost more money, but would be the proper Job.

+1million. I've never seen a stupider solution to just about anything before.

Mayor Street stop is also way too close. Get rid of Busáras and Mayor Street and have one larger-capacity stop at the junction of the spur, with only minimal access for cars needed it's not by any means impractical and makes the most sense. Not quite sure what you mean by underground line though? Surely this is covered by the travelator?

Bluetonic

sdonn_1 wrote: »

Get rid of Busáras and Mayor Street and have one larger-capacity stop at the junction of the spur, with only minimal access for cars needed

Come on so, give us an estimation on how many car park spaces are accessed under the Georges Dock, IFSC House, and Harbourmaster's Place area via Mayor Street?

Lets toss a coin between 7am and 10am and 4.00pm and 6.00pm to see who gets priority, the cars or the LUAS.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

sdanseo

Bluetonic wrote: »

Come on so, give us an estimation on how many car park spaces are accessed under the Georges Dock, IFSC House, and Harbourmaster's Place area via Mayor Street?

Lets toss a coin between 7am and 10am and 4.00pm and 6.00pm to see who gets priority, the cars or the LUAS.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Current configuration is one lane each way. Given the amount of traffic in the city I'd call sustaining that minimal, but in line with requirements. That said, most of the current configuration of the greater Dublin area is fundamentally flawed and certainly doesn't work at all so maybe an extra lane or two should be put in?

We want people to use the new LUAS, not wave to it from their cars.

Skyhater

sdonn_1 wrote: »

+1million. I've never seen a stupider solution to just about anything before.

Mayor Street stop is also way too close. Get rid of Busáras and Mayor Street and have one larger-capacity stop at the junction of the spur, with only minimal access for cars needed it's not by any means impractical and makes the most sense. Not quite sure what you mean by underground line though? Surely this is covered by the travelator?

Opps.... ment "link" not "line"
The underground walking link (preferably also with a travelator) would be from the new connolly stop (at the spur) to Busáras. The way the luas stop, Connolly, and Busáras would have a covered link....... as integrated as possible!!!

Kingdom

sdonn_1 wrote: »

+1million. I've never seen a stupider solution to just about anything before.

Mayor Street stop is also way too close. Get rid of Busáras and Mayor Street and have one larger-capacity stop at the junction of the spur, with only minimal access for cars needed it's not by any means impractical and makes the most sense. Not quite sure what you mean by underground line though? Surely this is covered by the travelator?

I'd say the Gladiators will be fairly p*ssed off though if we took away the grand finale! And I wouldn't like to mess with Battleaxe.

woodseb

can anyone explain how this will actually work with cars? i access a car park right before the proposed mayor street stop?

Slice

I don't see what all the fuss is about over a tram from Tallaght pulling into Connolly and then pulling out again towards the Point

GerardKeating

Victor wrote: »

While you might have Tallaght-Connolly and Citywest-The Point at peak time, I suspect at 6am or 11pm it would do Tallaght-Connolly-The Point and separately Citywest-Connolly-The Point.

Will they be able to do a CityWest-Tallaght service ?

HydeRoad

Slice wrote: »

I don't see what all the fuss is about over a tram from Tallaght pulling into Connolly and then pulling out again towards the Point

It's not so straightforward. If a tram pulls forward into Connolly, which is a terminal point, the driver has to leave the cab, go to the other end of the tram, and enter the cab at that end. I am sure it is not quite as simple as putting on a handbrake and locking the cab door behind you. Seems to me like a very hastily thought through arrangement, anything will do.

Slice

This happens all the time at Stephen's Green and it hardly delays the service at all

gjim

The difference is that Stephen's green is a terminus - you don't have trams coming at it from both directions. This is a relatively complicated manouver for what should be a simple line-of-sight light rail system and will create a bottleneck in the red line ultimately limiting the capacity of the entire line.

I wonder how to describe this: an at-grade self-intersection? Whatever it is, it's like a kink in a garden hose when it comes to capacity.

The removal of the ramp was a bad idea but cost a fortune - 20m or something? Fixing this situation would basically mean admitting the 20m was wasted and you can imagine the howls from the various media. The RPA are highly publicity conscious and would rather do anything than admit publicly that they made a mistake.

I mean is it too much to expect that the RPA might have planned for extending the red line eastwards in the far distanced past (five years ago)? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Either the ramp should never have been removed; this would have allowed the red line to continue into the docklands through the IE car park and would also have allowed a Luas stop right inside Connolly station beside the existing platforms.

Alternatively the red line should have terminated in Store Street and the 20m could have been spent providing a relatively high speed underground travellator link between Connolly and Busaras which would have had utility besides bringing people to and from the Luas stop.

Instead we've spent a ball of money and will have a tram line which doubles back on itself. This does not fill one with confidence in the RPA's abilities as engineers to be honest. I think they've been basking in the glory of the great job Veolia have done of actually running the Luas.

spacetweek

gjim wrote: »

The difference is that Stephen's green is a terminus - you don't have trams coming at it from both directions. This is a relatively complicated manouver for what should be a simple line-of-sight light rail system and will create a bottleneck in the red line ultimately limiting the capacity of the entire line.

I wonder how to describe this: an at-grade self-intersection? Whatever it is, it's like a kink in a garden hose when it comes to capacity.

The removal of the ramp was a bad idea but cost a fortune - 20m or something? Fixing this situation would basically mean admitting the 20m was wasted and you can imagine the howls from the various media. The RPA are highly publicity conscious and would rather do anything than admit publicly that they made a mistake.

I mean is it too much to expect that the RPA might have planned for extending the red line eastwards in the far distanced past (five years ago)? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Either the ramp should never have been removed; this would have allowed the red line to continue into the docklands through the IE car park and would also have allowed a Luas stop right inside Connolly station beside the existing platforms.

Alternatively the red line should have terminated in Store Street and the 20m could have been spent providing a relatively high speed underground travellator link between Connolly and Busaras which would have had utility besides bringing people to and from the Luas stop.

Instead we've spent a ball of money and will have a tram line which doubles back on itself. This does not fill one with confidence in the RPA's abilities as engineers to be honest. I think they've been basking in the glory of the great job Veolia have done of actually running the Luas.

If you terminated Red Line at Store St, people would have to go inside Busaras just to get to Connolly (via the travelator). Most people would just walk across the very busy road at great personal risk and there would be complaints about lack of integration.

I'm pretty sure there wouldn't have been enough space to take the line alongside the IE platforms as this would mean going through that very narrow gap beside the entrance to the Vaults nightclub.

And you couldn't terminate at Harbourmaster place because the RPA still didn't have agreement back in 2001 on an alignment through the IFSC. The IFSC wanted them to go via Sheriff St or the quays originally - remember the spat back in 2004 or thereabouts where they raised concerns about utility diversion on Mayor St in case it resulted in telecoms links going down and millions being lost for the banks? The RPA had no reason to believe the Mayor St alignment was going to be forthcoming so they had to terminate before Harbourmaster Place to make sure there would be room to turn north or south if that was the way the alignment ended up.

So:
- They couldn't terminate at Harbourmaster Place because they needed to leave their options open for Line C1
- They couldn't terminate at Store St because you'd have to walk across the road
- They couldn't terminate in the gap at the Vaults (leaving the ramp intact) because this would still result in a delta if Mayor St was used for the extension.

As an adjacent thought, taking this into the long term Busaras is probably moving eventually anyway. This will change priorities in the area. So the area will probably be redesigned then anyway.

Victor

Operationally, a stop near the vaults would have made most sense for getting passengers from tram to train and vice versa. The problem is that it would also need to be single track.

GerardKeating wrote: »

Will they be able to do a CityWest-Tallaght service ?

You will need to change at Belgard. The hope to reserve land for a delta between Belgard, Cookstown and the new Fettercairn stop.

GerardKeating

Victor wrote: »

You will need to change at Belgard. The hope to reserve land for a delta between Belgard, Cookstown and the new Fettercairn stop.

Seems a shame not to build it from the start, reto-fitting such things once the system is up and running will cost more..

AlekSmart

Crikey...."You will need to change at Belgard. The hope to reserve land for a delta between Belgard, Cookstown and the new Fettercairn stop"

The use of the term HOPE in the above sentence really draws the line under all of the Transport 21 hoo-hah.

As many are saying already this Luas was very recent in planning terms and still we are to live in HOPE that somebody can swing some stroke to allow progress to be made.

A banana republic in the truest sense I fear

EyesLeft

gjim wrote: »

The removal of the ramp was a bad idea but cost a fortune - 20m or something?

Do you have a reference for that, it seems an improbably large amount.

markf909

EyesLeft wrote: »

Do you have a reference for that, it seems an improbably large amount.

I actually thought the cost for the ramp removal was closer to €40m believe it or not.

Here's a link a found quoting €30m anyway:

http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/21557

trellheim

10 weeks Connolly and Busaras outage to install a simple delta , OHLE and a few bits and bobs is disgusting jobbery.

gjim

spacetweek wrote: »

If you terminated Red Line at Store St, people would have to go inside Busaras just to get to Connolly (via the travelator). Most people would just walk across the very busy road at great personal risk and there would be complaints about lack of integration.

I'm pretty sure there wouldn't have been enough space to take the line alongside the IE platforms as this would mean going through that very narrow gap beside the entrance to the Vaults nightclub.

And you couldn't terminate at Harbourmaster place because the RPA still didn't have agreement back in 2001 on an alignment through the IFSC. The IFSC wanted them to go via Sheriff St or the quays originally - remember the spat back in 2004 or thereabouts where they raised concerns about utility diversion on Mayor St in case it resulted in telecoms links going down and millions being lost for the banks? The RPA had no reason to believe the Mayor St alignment was going to be forthcoming so they had to terminate before Harbourmaster Place to make sure there would be room to turn north or south if that was the way the alignment ended up.

So:
- They couldn't terminate at Harbourmaster Place because they needed to leave their options open for Line C1
- They couldn't terminate at Store St because you'd have to walk across the road
- They couldn't terminate in the gap at the Vaults (leaving the ramp intact) because this would still result in a delta if Mayor St was used for the extension.

As an adjacent thought, taking this into the long term Busaras is probably moving eventually anyway. This will change priorities in the area. So the area will probably be redesigned then anyway.

Fair enough; it is always easier to be critical with the benefit of hindsight and it's reasonable to raise the constraints that the RPA had to work with at the time. However I don't see their final choice solves any of the problems you mention.

It's worth pointing out that the relatively miniscule distances involved here. It is only 150m between the Store St. stop and the Connolly stop which must make them the closest stops on either of the Luas lines. The piece of track going to Connolly from this junction will be less than 100m long. I cannot see the value or utility this 100m "spur" offers even in the short term.

Looking into the future, the Interconector station in Spencer Dock will make make it seem even more useless as the Docklands will be as busy if not more so as an integration point than Connolly.

If there were compromises in the original layout because the future was uncertain, given what is known now, I cannot believe the planned extension is optimal in any way.

Victor

gjim wrote: »

The piece of track going to Connolly from this junction will be less than 100m long. I cannot see the value or utility this 100m "spur" offers even in the short term.

There is no new spur. They are building an extension that merely turns the existing terminus into a spur. On the spur there is no new track beyond the delta.

Looking into the future, the Interconector station in Spencer Dock will make make it seem even more useless as the Docklands will be as busy if not more so as an integration point than Connolly.

The Interconector is far into the future.

If there were compromises in the original layout because the future was uncertain, given what is known now, I cannot believe the planned extension is optimal in any way.

There are many problems that are a thousand times more serious than this one.

gjim

There is no new spur. They are building an extension that merely turns the existing terminus into a spur. On the spur there is no new track beyond the delta.

Eh? I don't know where you got the impression that I believed that they were proposing building a "new spur".

I was describing what is being built. After the extension is done, there will be a spur less than 100m long coming off what will a very busy section of the red line.

There are many problems that are a thousand times more serious than this one.

Like what exactly? The extension is pretty much spot on as far as I can see in every respect EXCEPT for this piece.

This spur is of limited if any utility and will add unnecessary time to many journeys and will create contention. There will be two stops less than 150m apart, there will be a requirement for drivers to switch ends and there will be extra contention between trams doing in opposite directions ('though I suspect west bound trams will skip using the spur to avoid this). This is not optimal.

They should have used the opportunity to reconfigure this part of the line. For example, a simple straight run through to Manor St with the Store St and Connolly stops replaced by a single stop on the Connolly side of Amiens St. would be far more logical.

spacetweek

gjim wrote: »

They should have used the opportunity to reconfigure this part of the line. For example, a simple straight run through to Manor St with the Store St and Connolly stops replaced by a single stop on the Connolly side of Amiens St. would be far more logical.

While that's a good idea in practice, I just checked a Live Earth view and there really isn't room for a stop right at the delta - which is what I presume you mean - while still allowing space for vehicular access.

I also think it would leave you too far from the entrance of the station.

bazzer06

just a thought i had... in the future, could the connolly spur actually be the start of a new line heading out towards Clontarf or north towards Marino/Coolock? If that were to be the case, could a tunnel be constructed under the station?

paulm17781

bazzer06 wrote: »

just a thought i had... in the future, could the connolly spur actually be the start of a new line heading out towards Clontarf or north towards Marino/Coolock? If that were to be the case, could a tunnel be constructed under the station?

I'm pretty certain that would be a massive job, what with there being large heavy trains above. If the money were there it would be a good idea but I wouldn't see it happening.

markpb

bazzer06 wrote: »

just a thought i had... in the future, could the connolly spur actually be the start of a new line heading out towards Clontarf or north towards Marino/Coolock? If that were to be the case, could a tunnel be constructed under the station?

Clontarf wouldn't make a lot of sense since the Dart runs through/near it already. Luas to Coolock would be interesting - it could run out from the existing station at Connolly and along Amiens, Fairview and Malahide. They're four lane roads all the way to Coolock since the QBC work so it could run in the middle without any change to the existing traffic lanes. You wouldn't need to dig under Connolly either, just change the terminating end of the track to divert it back onto the road.

Victor

markpb wrote: »

Clontarf wouldn't make a lot of sense since the Dart runs through/near it already. Luas to Coolock would be interesting - it could run out from the existing station at Connolly and along Amiens, Fairview and Malahide. They're four lane roads all the way to Coolock since the QBC work so it could run in the middle without any change to the existing traffic lanes. You wouldn't need to dig under Connolly either, just change the terminating end of the track to divert it back onto the road.

There are pinch points like the bottom of the Malahide Road, Donnycarney, Loopline Bridge over Amiens Street, but yes, something could be done.

weehamster

I'm sorry, but while I would like to see that, the Malahide Road is impossible to use as a Luas line. The section from Fairview to Griffith Ave would require to remove all of the front gardens along it and those gardens aren't big.

The road outside the Parnell Park House pub is tight as well as at the Collins Ave Jtn. In Artane the Kilmore Rd Jtn bad major pinch and gardens will have to be removed.

Closer to town at North Strand, the bridge going over the Clonsilla Rail line has a bit of a hump and I'm not sure if a tram can go over it and I'm not sure if the hump can be replaced without effecting the height clearance of the line under it.

A tunnel would have to avoid the Port Tunnel Road so it would have to be deep. Sorry but too much cash would be required for a Luas to Coolock from Connolly. So I can safely say that its a non starter.

There is also the fact that this is one of the busiest roads into the city, M1, Malahide, North Dublin Fringe development traffic use this route as well as the existing estates that are along it. So these commuters would have to be given a real alternative or taken off the road altogether. Also it is also one of the busiest bus routes into the city.

The only chance I can see Coolock getting a Luas is something along the lines of the the auld 'Platform for Change' proposal for link from Howth Jtn to the Ballymun Luas line , now Metro North Tram. This could possibly head onward to Finglas.

Bluetonic

weehamster wrote: »

The only chance I can see Coolock getting a Luas is something along the lines of the the auld 'Platform for Change' proposal for link from Howth Jtn to the Ballymun Luas line , now Metro North Tram. This could possibly head onward to Finglas.

A continuation of Metro West to Clongriffin, where a spur from Coolock northbound from the R104 to along the centre of the R107 which would cover Coolock, Donaghmede, Darndale and Clarehall would surfice. This would give connectivity to Metro North and West, The Airport, DART and Suburban rail.

daheff

In my opinion the whole idea of the Luas is a joke. They should be maximising capacity for transport. They are reducing capacity (roads) to increase rail capacity....if they put the whole thing underground (in city centre) and overground where it didnt interfere with road space.

Obviously it would cost more...but it would be worth it....with our current system of trams, trains and buses things will be overcrowded in a few years (they already are in some places).....so we should maximise capacities where possible.

markpb

daheff wrote: »

Obviously it would cost more...but it would be worth it....with our current system of trams, trains and buses things will be overcrowded in a few years (they already are in some places).....so we should maximise capacities where possible.

It would cost so much more than nothing would ever be done and we'd end up with no new rail lines. I think the difference is 10x between overground and underground but I can't remember where I read that.

Agree with you on the capacity issue though, I'm not sure how to solve that.

Victor

I think for Ballymun they were saying elevated would be twice the cost of surface and cut and cover would be twice the cost of elevated. Not sure about bored tunnel

sdanseo

Victor wrote: »

I think for Ballymun they were saying elevated would be twice the cost of surface and cut and cover would be twice the cost of elevated. Not sure about bored tunnel

Problem with this is the time it takes - 5 years for DPT was totally unacceptable (especially cost-wise, builders don't work for chipsticks) and cut-and-cover is simply faster. It doesn't ned to be 20m deep - 7 or 8 will do as long as it's only road that's put over it.

The one and only thing this city doesn't need is for these various projects to be shrouded in red tape. Get them started, and get them started NOW.